C-24 Citizenship Act Committee Hearing – 12 May

2014/05/13 1 Comment

Committee only heard from the first three witnesses as it went in camera for the second hour (and have not seen any updates since then – will update if needed).

Starting with those supporting the Government approach.

Paul Attia of Immigrants For Canada started off by noting the broad base of his organization and the basic view that citizenship should be viewed as a privilege. If earned, it should be available to all. He supported the increased residency requirements but questioned whether 183 days in 4 years out of 6 was sufficient. All citizens should have language proficiency, as language was a key unifier. His association strongly supports revocation for terrorist activity but the process has to be consistent with Canadian values, constitutional democracy (i.e., formal judicial review required). Similarly with respect to criminal convictions outside Canada, provisions should ensure comparability to Canadian norms.

He finished with a hockey analogy (very Canadian!). If you want to where the team sweater, brandishing his Team Canada sweater, you need to meet the requirements (residency), communicate with team members (language) and not lie to or kill your team members (revocation).

Interestingly, despite the claims of his organization having a broad base of support and many members, their website appears to be largely inactive since 2011. He is also a board member of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation appointed by the government.

Those opposed to the bill.

Avvy Yao-Yao Go of the Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic largely reinforced some of the earlier concerns made by CARL and others. Given their clientele, largely refugees and the more vulnerable, her organization strongly opposed the increased residency requirements, removal of time for temporary residents (refugees, live-in caregivers, students, spouses who are conditional Permanent Residents), the intent to reside provision given concerns it could be grounds revocation for fraud, the expansion of language requirements to 55-64, and fee increases. They also oppose revocation for dual citizens, both on substantive reasons (creating differential treatment between mono and dual nationals) as well as process and comparability for foreign convictions to Canadian norms. The overall impact of the bill would be to restrict citizenship in practice, bringing Canada back to an era of discrimination.

Bernie M. Farber and Mitchell J. Goldberg spoke for the Jewish Refugee Action Network (J-RAN), starting off by noting that many refugees when treated with fairness and compassionate become productive citizens, building their lives in Canada. There should be a reasonable path for refugees to become citizens. J-RAN was deeply concerned about the impact on the fee increases (a “cash grab”), increasing language requirements affecting children (hard to see, they will have been in school) and grandparents, and removal of credit for pre-Permanent Residents time. They expressed concern over the intent to reside provision given Charter section 6 (mobility rights) as well as the practical reality that circumstances change for work, study or family reasons. While they have no sympathy for terrorists and criminals, they do not support revocation (“banishment”); such provisions are “unconstitutional and unjust” and such cases should be handled by the criminal justice system. Revocation in cases of fraud was supported.

In questioning, some nuances in positions emerged. In response to CPC/Menegakis, Attia noted need for greater clarity on the intent to reside provision. Liberal McCallum probed further, stating that the Minister had been unclear. Attia confirmed this lack of clarity, stating that the “devil was in the details” on what exactly it meant and how it would be enforced.

There was more interaction between witnesses and MPs who had different perspectives. CPC/Shory pressed J-RAN on revocation, given that terrorism struck at the “bedrock of Canadian identity.” Goldberg picked up on the hockey analogy, “if a heinous act committed against a hockey player, they are penalized, not banished.”

CPC/Shory noted that only 15 percent use pre-Permanent Residents time towards citizenship. NDP/Sitsabaiesan continued to press on this issue with J-RAN and Avvy Go who reaffirmed their positions and noted the apparent contradiction between encouraging Canadian Experience Class immigration while not providing credit for pre-Permanent Residents time.

Witnesses scheduled but not heard included:

Canadian War Brides (Melynda Jarratt,Don Chapman (Lost Canadians)

Amandeep Singh, Singh Thind & Associates

Narindarpal Singh Kang, Law Firm of Kang & Company

I have created a top-level tab for C-24 briefings for those interested (note that not all organizations post their briefs or respond to requests for same) and add a link to transcripts when available (usually about 2 weeks after meetings).

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , , , , ,

C-24 Citizenship Act Committee Hearings – 7 May

2014/05/08 1 Comment

Shorter hearing given voting in the house which made the statements and Q&As shorter.

Supporting the Government’s approach were the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Canada, National Forum for Civic Action, and James Bissett, a retired immigration official who comments on immigration and related issues.

Predictably, supporting the opposition were the two academics, Elke Winter and Patti Tamara Lenard of University of Ottawa, with the most neutral advocacy coming from Pre-PR (Permanent Residents) Time counts, focussing on the Government’s proposed elimination of counting time in Canada for students, live-in caregivers, and refugees towards the residency period to become citizens.

Starting with Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Canada, one of the preferred Muslim groups of the governments (along with the Ismailis). After noting the pride members of his community have in Canada, Asif Khan emphasized that Islamic teachings require “absolute love and loyalty” to one’s country of residence. It was essential for the Government to have powers to deter aggression and protect against extremism. He supported the proposed approach to revocation, and argued that more attention and measures should be applied to those who used investment or trade opportunities to enter Canada and spread their “hateful ideologies.” He did express concern over increasing the number of applicants that would be required to take language and knowledge tests.

National Forum for Civic Action argued for even tougher citizenship requirements. Bikram prefaced his comments by saying that he was going to be “politically incorrect.” Canada’s approach placed original Canadians at a disadvantage, and the Government’s approach was half-hearted. Proficiency in English or French, not just adequate knowledge, should be required. Stop family reunification, seniors are “forced to come here” and are unhappy. Permanent Residents on welfare should lose status. Revocation should be broadened to include domestic abuse and should also apply to second generation immigrants and those elected to public office in other countries. Ministerial discretion on humanitarian and compassionate grounds should be ended.

James Bissett, in a somewhat rambling presentation, stressed his support for a longer residency period. He would have preferred five years but proposal goes in right direction. He supports the revocation provisions and (erroneously) stated that this is in line with most EU countries, and citing UK granting the Home Secretary considerable power in this regard. He dismissed that the provisions would create second class citizens as there was an inherent different between those born in Canada, whose citizenship is granted automatically, and those who choose to become naturalized and take the oath.

Opposing the bill, Elke Winter noted that immigration was fundamental to Canadian nation building, that Canadian Immigration was largely economically driven, and that multiculturalism and citizenship were huge factors in increasing belonging. Some elements of C-24 undermine success in integration by making citizenship as the end-point of integration, rather than part of the journey. The bill makes it harder for the less educated, socially and economically disadvantaged, including many women. Higher fees are an additional barrier. For the highly skilled and mobile, the longer and tougher residency requirements may result in this group becoming as “utilitarian as the selection process”, and adopt a more instrumental approach to citizenship. More flexibility over physical residency is required. She opposes the proposed revocation measures and fears that it will increase the suspicion of dual nationals.

Patti Lenard started off by correcting Bissett on revocation, noting that only UK had taken this approach. US and Australia had rejected it, most EU countries either didn’t apply revocation or were changing their approach. While 75 percent of dual nationals were naturalized Canadians, there was also a significant number of dual nationals by birth (i.e., they didn’t make a choice as Bissett asserted). The fundamental problem with revocation is that it made a group of Canadians more vulnerable to the coercive powers of the state, with Ministerial discretion in too many cases, creating the perception, absent a role for the Courts, of possible Ministerial abuse. UK illustrated the risks of what she called a “fundamentally corrupting power.”

Pre-PR Time Counts strongly opposed the elimination of credit for time as a temporary resident counting towards citizenship. Taisia Shcherbakova and Maria Smirnoff argued that Temporary Foreign Workers and equivalent were not newcomers to Canada but had already largely integrated into Canada. The change perversely would give preference to those without any Canadian experience. They noted that this change would place Canada at a disadvantage compared to Australia and the UK, and argued for similar credit of one year for every year of temporary residence (current legislation only provides for 50 percent credit).

Questioning by MPs  largely buttressed party positions, but there were some interesting moments.

In response to CPC/Menangakis, Bissett clarified that while he supported longer residency periods, there was a need for flexibility, as it may create problems for people who have to travel a lot on business.

NDP/Sitsabaiesan rather cleverly did a quick poll of  all witnesses on credit for time as temporary residents. All supported providing credit, notwithstanding their very different perspectives on citizenship. Liberal/McCallum picked up on that point, noting that Minister Alexander had refused to change approach when asked at the beginning of the hearings.

Will add links to briefs as they become available.


  

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act, Revocation Tagged with , , , ,

C-24 Citizenship Act Committee Hearings – 5 May

2014/05/06 2 Comments

As there was no real press coverage of Committee hearings 5 May, watched the video and the following summary may be of interest.

Like many committee hearings, an element of Kabuki theatre with the Government asking questions of witnesses in favour of their approach to revocation while the opposition asking questions of those opposed to revocation and a number of other provisions.

On the Government “side,” there was Canadian Israel Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), Alliance of Canadian Terror Victims Foundation and the Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD); “for” the opposition, the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

CIJA supported most aspects of the proposed changes, including increased residency, language and knowledge requirements, the intent to reside, and the revocation provisions. Given that the possible impact of the Israel’s law of return, given all Jews the right to Israeli residency and citizenship, subject to an application process, Fogal spent considerable time stating that the dual national distinction did not apply to the right to having another citizenship but only to those who exercise that right. He did, however, note the need for some process improvements, particularly the need in any terror-related convictions in foreign countries to be subject to a test that they were equivalent to Canadian practice and fairness.

Alliance of Canadian Terror Victims Foundation (ACTVF) and the Foundation for Defence of Democracies also support the Government’s revocation proposals (see earlier opinion piece by Sheryl Saperia The case for revoking citizenship – National Post). Both argue that the fundamental social contract makes revocation appropriate in such extreme cases of terrorism, war crimes and the like.

Saperia of FDD noted the need for some process improvements (tighter drafting of connection to Canada for terrorist activities and, like CIJA, the need to have explicit criteria for determining the equivalence of foreign to Canadian convictions). On dual nationals, she said that in cases where other countries do not allow for renunciation, the Minister could have discretion to decided on the degree of connectedness to the foreign country. She also emphasized the need for more preventative anti-radicalization measures, noting the RCMP high-risk traveller program (RCMP set to tackle extremism at home with program to curb radicalization of Canadian youth), as well as requiring those applying for passports to make some sort of commitment to not engage in such activity.

For Alliance founder Maureen Basnicki, it is intensely personal, given she is a 9/11 widow, and believes that:

Therefore, if Canada allows a convicted terrorist to retain the Canadian citizenship, Canada is in effect saying “we accept the terrorist act as part of the fabric of life in Canada”.

But we also allow murderers and sex offenders to stay in Canada, as unfortunately they too are part of the fabric of society.

All three did not acknowledge that dual nationality does not only apply to naturalized Canadians. One can be born in Canada and yet have dual nationality. And if such a person is born and educated in Canada, is  “outsourcing” the problem, without accepting responsibility. And I suspect that the distinction made between the legal right to another citizenship, without taking it up, is a distinction that may not be applied equally to all communities, combined with the reverse onus of proof.

On the opposition “side”, the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group focussed on the situations of some of the more vulnerable refugees, and recommended keeping existing residency requirements (3 of 4 years), some exemptions for the knowledge and language requirements, testing language at end of process, maintaining right of Court appeal, reversal of proposed fee increases, no power to strip dual nationals of Canadian citizenship, and ensure intent to reside provision is not grounds for misrepresentation given that situations change.

Audrey Macklin of CARL focussed on the intent to reside and revocation provisions. On the former, their reading is that the law is written so that this could be grounds for citizenship revocation on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. On revocation, CARL focussed on the constitutionality, noting that Charter rights cannot be violated as punishment, and that the social contract argument is not supported by jurisprudence. The distinction between “mono” and dual Canadian citizens is also likely not Charter compliant. She also raised a number of procedural rights (e.g., retroactively, reverse onus of proof) as areas of concern.

Questioning by MPs was largely predictable. Government MPs asked questions of “their side” as did opposition MPs, both trying to buttress their own positions.

One of the more interesting questions, however, was by Chungsen Leung (CPC), who went on at some length about how attachment and contribution to Canada could happen when one was abroad, almost questioning the intent to reside provision. The eventual question, directed at CIJA, reverted back to the obvious examples of citizens of convenience (e.g., 2006 Lebanese evacuation), with CIJA maintaining that being the real aim of the provision. But then drafting should be tighter so as not to cast to broad a net on Canadians that may move abroad for valid work, study or family reasons.

Ted Opitz (CPC) was poorly briefed in arguing that many countries have the same approach to revocation as proposed by the Government and that a previous Liberal government had ended revocation for treason. CARL corrected him on the former point (only UK currently has this approach, Australia is considering) and it was under Diefenbaker, two generations ago, that Canada stopped revoking citizenship from dual citizens.

And a bit of an interesting debate between Saperia and Basnicki with Macklin of CARL on whether the world would think better of Canada if we revoked citizenship or not. For Saperia and Basnicki, this was viewed as a strong signal worldwide that Canada did not tolerate such activity; Macklin argued the contrary that “outsourcing” our problem would signal that Canada does not take responsibility for the activities of its citizens. A philosophical divide.

Links (where available) are below. One note of frustration, the Parliamentary website, apart from posting agenda and the video link, does not appear to be posting briefs or transcripts, making it harder for those who wish to follow the discussions. A related frustration is that a number of organizations to not post their briefs and statements on their websites automatically or respond to requests for copies. I will update this list as the briefs and statements become available.

Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group

Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs – CIJA (link not yet posted)

Alliance of Canadian Terror Victims Foundation

Foundation for Defense of Democracies (link not yet posted)

Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (brief)

CARL Press Release: New Citizenship Act Threatens Rights of All Canadians

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , , , , , ,

C-24 Citizenship Act Committee Hearings – 30 April

2014/05/01 Leave a comment

Good overview by CBC and iPolitics on yesterday’s C-24 hearings. Apart from Martin Collacott of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, all other testimony expressed serious concern over the proposed revocation provisions, both on process (how the decision is taken) and substance (should we treat single and dual nationals different, is banishment appropriate?).

Naturally enough, the likelihood or not of the proposed approach being in compliance with the Constitution and Charter was raised again. Minister Alexander on Monday stated that the Bill is in “complete conformity with the requirements of our constitution” (the Government does not release internal legal opinions which are exempt under ATIP). Given the Government’s track record on recent SCC high-profile cases, and any number of other cases, not sure whether Minister Alexander’s certainty is well-placed.

Collacott’s rationale on supporting revocation provisions:

“A survey in 2012 found that eight out of 10 people…agreed that Canadians found guilty of treason or terrorism should lose their citizenship, he said, then mentioned an Ipsos Reid poll from several years earlier that reached a similar conclusion.

“Of course if we started taking away citizenship from every Canadian who was charged with a terrorism act — say, in Russia for activities in Ukraine or a lot of other places — we would have a problem. But I don’t think that’s what the bill’s aimed at. And I don’t think the bill will be misused for that purpose.”

While Collacott is correct on public opinion, having faith in the bill not being misused does not excuse the risks of overly broad drafting, even if one accepts the principle. David Matas of B’nai Brith made the point in noting that “terrorism offence” the term used in the Bill, should be narrowed to “act of terrorism”.

Citizenship has its privileges: committee debates terms of revocation (iPolitics)

Citizenship changes ‘likely unconstitutional,’ lawyers warn (CBC)

David Berger, former Liberal MP and Ambassador to Israel, focuses more on the increased residency and related requirements, arguing:

These measures are counter-productive in the 21st century when people arguably are our most important asset and we should help all of our residents to develop to their fullest potential. Immigrants are particularly critical for Canada, because they account for 67 per cent of our annual population growth.

The removal of flexibility is also out of step with an increasingly globalized economy in which immigrants can contribute to our economy and society through their activities abroad. It also contradicts the goal of the government’s highly touted startup visa which according to Employment Minister Jason Kenney aims to attract the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Immigrants admitted under this program can fully be expected to spend considerable time outside Canada if they are building the next Apple Computer or Microsoft.

Citizen should encourage citizenship

Links to briefs:

Canadian Bar Association

Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers

B’nai Brith

Centre for Immigration Policy Reform (not yet posted)

Video of 28 April First Session

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with ,

C-24 – Citizenship Act Revisions – Committee Hearings Started

2014/04/29 Leave a comment

Will be interesting to see how these play out. First day was essentially introduction plus some initial positions from the opposition parties:

… NDP opposition critic Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe started off by asking Alexander to address the bill’s constitutionality. Given the Harper government’s record on tests of constitutionality before the Supreme Court recently, the question’s a touchy one.

In particular, she asked whether the new requirement for those applying for Canadian citizenship to declare their intention to reside in Canada post-citizenship — violated sections six and 15 of the Charter — those that protect the right to free mobility and equal protection under the law.

“With regard to our bill and the constitution — of course we reviewed this bill in that context. I carried this out with my colleague the minister of justice and we believe this bill is in complete conformity with the requirements of our constitution,” Alexander answered in French.

“It is reasonable, in our view, to require that a permanent resident wishing to become a Canadian citizen express his or her intention to reside in Canada.”

Liberal critic John McCullum focussed on the impact of no longer providing credit to foreign students for time spent in Canada prior to becoming permanent residents as part of residency qualifications. Minister Alexander restated the government’s position.

This change also affects refugees, arguably not a priority for the Government, and live-in caregivers. The latter, largely Filipinos, may, should the Filipino Canadian community become active on this issue, may be more problematic given that this community is one of the Government’s political target communities.

To be continued, and thanks to iPolitics for covering the hearings.

Citizenship reform bill is constitutional, Alexander assures committee

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , ,

Can we really wash our hands of extremist dual nationals?

2014/04/19 Leave a comment

Konrad Yakabuski on C-24’s proposed revocation measures for terrorism-related crimes, calling for serious debate on the implications, given recent US and UK revelations regarding US drone strikes on former UK citizens whose citizenship was revoked. See also Chris Selley’s Actually, my citizenship is a right | National Post.

Will be interesting to see if the debate within Committee focuses on the long-standing principle since Diefenbaker that a citizen is a citizen, whether born in Canada or naturalized, or more on due process and rule of law in any referrals to the Federal Court seeking revocation.

Still, C-24 is not perfect. Its proposal to strip dual nationals convicted of terror-related crimes of their Canadian citizenship warrants serious scrutiny in light of recent revelations by the British news media. If the intent is to ease CIA drone strikes, or the extradition to the United States of terrorist suspects living abroad, MPs should think long and hard about what that means for Canada.

Mr. Alexander has said he is “confident” that many of the 130 Canadians believed to be fighting with extremist groups abroad are dual nationals. Revoking their citizenship while they’re outside the country could prevent them from ever returning to Canada. This country would effectively absolve itself of their fate, even though some of them may have been born here…

Mr. Alexander has insisted that “the courts will play a very important role” in the process of revoking the Canadian citizenship of a dual national convicted of terrorism. That’s an improvement over the British system, where most of the power lies with the Home Secretary. But is it enough? The Commons citizenship committee needs to ask Mr. Alexander some tough questions.

Can we really wash our hands of extremist dual nationals? – The Globe and Mail

Or, given the “shopping for votes” culture, opposition parties focus more on fee increases and increased residency requirements.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act, Revocation Tagged with

Citizenship Act: Canadian Council of Refugees Submission

2014/03/27 Leave a comment

Submission have started. This one, from the Canadian Council of Refugees, contains few surprises. My sense is that their concerns range from the relatively less significant (e.g., change in residency, fees) to more substantive (e.g., revocation):

Principles

Citizenship rules are fundamental to who we are as a country. We believe it is crucial that the rules:

a) Respect the principle that all citizens are equal.

b) Embrace newcomers and encourage them to quickly become full participating members of our society.

c) Recognize the barriers that some newcomers face to full participation, including the particular barriers faced by refugees who have suffered persecution and long years of deprivation.

d) Respect the principle that citizenship is a status from which rights derive, and is thus similar to our status as human beings. It is not something that can be lost through bad behaviour.

e) Be clear about who acquires or loses citizenship. Individuals should have access to a fair hearing before an independent decision-maker. Decisions should not be made on a discretionary basis by the Minister.

RT @ccrweb: Concerned about changes to #citizenship in Canada? So are we. Read our submission to Parliament: http://t.co/qGwUxcxTNT #cdnimm…

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with ,

Sheryl Saperia: The case for revoking citizenship

2014/03/25 2 Comments

The alternate view to that expressed by Chris Selley a number of weeks ago (Actually, my citizenship is a right | National Post)  by Sheryl Saperia is Director of Policy for Canada at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)

Bill C-24 makes ordinary Canadians safer by adding a new layer of deterrence against engaging in terrorism, treason and armed conflict with Canada; facilitating the removal of people who pose a threat not only to Canada, but to the vulnerable individuals in our society susceptible to radicalization; and removing the coveted Canadian passport from those who would use it as a tool to support or carry out terrorist attacks.

Sheryl Saperia: The case for revoking citizenship | National Post.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , ,

Citizenship – Varia

2014/03/12 Leave a comment

Catching up on citizenship issues while I was away.

Good piece by Nicholas Yeoung of the Star sharing some anecdotal reactions to the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act:

http://read.thestar.com/?origref=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FcyqfDhUNZj#!/article/53147e0bec0691be4e000037

More on the British revocation provisions regarding those convicted of or suspect of terrorist activities. In contrast to the proposed approach by the Canadian government, the UK Minister has the authority, not the courts, and the UK does not intend to respect the international convention on statelessness:

How a British Citizen Was Stripped of His Citizenship, Then Sent to a Manhattan Prison | The Nation

Some op-eds on perceived remaining issues related to changes in the government’s approach to citizenship, starting with the first generation limit and a somewhat plaintive complaint about the impact on his daughter, born, living and growing up in the USA, who will not be able to pass on her Canadian citizenship to her children. Part of the risk of expatriate life, and if it is that important to her family, there are a number of paths available (but none are cost-free, ranging from the family spending time in Canada, to the daughter marrying a Canadian or giving birth in Canada).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/my-daughters-second-class-citizenship/article17124132/

A more serious issue is to what extent is the government required to provide consular assistance, given the increased range of situations Canadians find themselves:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/if-canadian-citizenship-becomes-more-exclusive-it-must-become-more-meaningful/article17133298/

No surprise that an ATIP request shows that the proposed shorter waiting time for people serving in the Canadian military is more symbolic than real, with only a minimal number of potential applicants:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/tories-citizenship-fast-track-for-soldiers-would-have-little-effect-figures-show/article17348121/

The usual monthly update on citizenship processing stats, showing improvement given Budget 2013 money. The test is whether the government will continue to publish these stats should the trend turn, or commit to service standards and quarterly reports, rather than press releases when it serves their interest.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2014/2014-02-28.asp

And pity the abandoned Chinese millionaires:

http://feedly.com/e/uTyR2SKo

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act, Revocation Tagged with , , , ,

Changing citizenship rule could hurt Canada’s efforts to woo foreign students: observers

2014/02/24 Leave a comment

Ironic, as the Government has been innovative in attracting foreign students through new categories like the Canadian Experience Class, that no longer counting time as a non-permanent resident student is part of the proposed Citizenship Act revisions. Unclear whether this will have much direct impact on recruitment efforts for international students but that is the fear:

The change is raising some eyebrows as it creates a potential hurdle for those who typically make well-integrated, sought-after immigrants.

“Increasingly international students are seen as a fabulous talent pool for Canada, they’re golden immigrants,” said Jennifer Humphries, a vice-president at the Canadian Bureau for International Education.

“They can be huge contributors to the Canadian society, Canadian economy. If we create roadblocks to them, what will happen could mean that they could get their education in Canada and end up going to work in the U.S.”

Changing citizenship rule could hurt Canada’s efforts to woo foreign students: observers – Canada, Need to know, News & Politics – Macleans.ca.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →